Since the nineteenth century, Asians have been
immigrants to Australia. In 1861, they comprised nearly
3.5% of the Australian population (Price, 1983).
However, with the White Australia Policy, the Asian
component of the Australian population had dropped to
0.4%. This percentage was to remain at a low level until
the mid sixties when the barriers against the entry of
skilled non-Europeans and part-Europeans (those of mixed
descent) was relaxed. The aim then was to only allow low
numbers of middle-class non-Europeans into Australia.
Their numbers were kept small to make them socially
invisible and subject to the availability of preferred
White immigrant groups (Castles, 1993:56).

The decision of the Whitlam Government in 1973 to remove
ethnicity as a condition of entry enabled greater number
of migrants of Asian decent to call Australia home. In a
way, it was also a recognition of the economic and
political significance of the Asian Pacific region to
Australia's future economic and political interests. In
the 1976-77 period, immigrants from Asia grew from 15%
of the total intake to 34% of the intake in 1986-87.
While the migratory patterns are related to
decolonisation and modernisation, the backgrounds and
motivations are not homogenous (Castles, 1993:58). It
ranges from unqualified asylum-seekers from Indochina to
highly educated professionals from Singapore, Malaysia,
India and Hong Kong.

Today,
Asian Australians who migrated to Australia comprise
about 4.1% of the Australian population. 2.2% of the
population (377,751) come from Southeast Asia, which
comprises of, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and
Vietnam. 1.2% of the population (199,288) come from
Northeast Asia, which comprises of, China, Hong Kong,
Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Macau, Mongolia and
Taiwan. 0.7% of the population (110,811) come from
Southern Asia, which comprises of, Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and
Sri Lanka.

As a developed country, Australia pulls in highly
qualified people from around the world and also
low-skilled migrants to service the 'haves'. This is
reflective of the emerging polarisation of the labour
markets in the developed world. As the demand for
specialists and those with capital increases, there also
exists growing numbers of low-skilled jobs in
unregulated and non-unionised sectors of the market in
such areas as light manufacturing, retail and catering
(Castles,1993:52). These sectors have limited security
of employment and are generally non-unionised and tend
to be filled by refugees, NESB migrants and women. The
revival of the garment industry in Western Europe, the
USA and Australia is borne on the backs of migrant women
whose wages approximate that in Asia and South America
(Castles, 1993:53).

The employment pattern of Asian Australians is complex
and often contradictory. For example, the 1986 census
shows that women born in Vietnam, Turkey, Yugoslavia and
Greece were three to four times more likely to be
employed in manufacturing than the average for women in
the labour force.

Likewise, in the clothing industry, women born in
Vietnam, Turkey, Cyprus and Greece were over-represented
by eight to twelve times (Collins, 1988:82-85). In the
early 1980s unemployment went above 10% for the first
time in fifty years, the overseas born was about two
percentage points above the locally born population
(Collins, 1988:163). In 1987, 36.8% of males and 36.9%
of females born in Vietnam were unemployed, compared to
8.1% of males and 8.2% of females born in Australia.
Part of the reason for this laid in the fundamental
structural changes going on in the Australian economy
with declining numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled
jobs available in the manufacturing sector. As part of
this process, there has been an increase in the number
of part-time work among women and an increase in the
number of 'outworkers' in such industries as textiles,
footwear, electronics, packing, food and groceries
(Centre for Working Women Co-operative, 1986).

At the other end of the spectrum, there are highly
skilled migrants from Asia who are highly represented in
managerial, administrative and professional occupations.
Jayasuriya (1990: 12) notes that the percentages of
Asian migrants in middle-class white collar jobs is
similar to that of Australian and UK born migrants. The
figures from the 1981 and the 1986 data has not altered
the occupational structures of the Asian groups as a
whole, namely, Asian migrants fall into two main
categories, those highly educated and in middle-class
occupations and those less highly educated in
working-class occupations (Jayasuriya, ibid.).

For the former group, the issues of concern centre
around promotion opportunities and the recognition of
overseas qualifications and experience. The effects of
EEO legislation has been patchy for many immigrant
groups. Niland and Champion (1990: 28) had expected to
find model programs in the NSW public sector given that
equal opportunity plans for staff of non-English
speaking background have been mandatory for the last 8
to 9 years. However, they note that there were hardly
any examples. In the private sector, they note that even
fewer firms have formal EEO policies and programs for
immigrant workers. In the 1990 EEO survey of the NSW
public sector conducted by the Office of the Director of
Public Employment, 12% of female NESB staff and 18.2% of
NESB male staff experienced racially based harassment at
work (ODEOPE, 1992:137). Accents continue to be cited as
a major barrier to promotion for NESB staff (Niland &
Champion, op.cit.: 108 and PSC, 1990:15).

The original intent of post-war immigration policy had
been to strengthen the 'British character' of Australia
(Castles, 1993:68). When they arrived, Eastern and
Southern Europeans had to overcome considerable
hostility and had to prove their economic and cultural
worth to the nation. With the abolition of the White
Australia policy in 1973, and with a greater presence of
Asian Australians, a variant of the process is being
repeated.

While in historical terms it was the yellow and red
perils that was external to Australia, in the recent
past, the Asian Australia presence had been portrayed by
some quarters as a socio-economic takeover and is being
blamed for such items as being a threat to social
cohesion, unemployment, violence, rising real estate
prices in some suburbs and declining prices in other
suburbs, environmental degradation, urban decay and
exploitation of the welfare system, crime and urban
decline. The presence of Asians in Australia has
frequently aroused debate within certain quarters, the
more recent ones being the Blainey debate in 1984, the
1986 comments by Mr. John Howard about threats to social
cohesion with an increasing multicultural population.

Research by Jayasuriya notes that the aggregate data
with regard to almost all the major social indicators
such as crime rates, fertility levels, divorce rates,
health status and educational performance suggests that
there are no significant differences between Asian
Australians and other migrant groups (Jayasuriya,
1990:11). Fertility rates among Asian Australians range
from 1.9 to 2.1 per women, rates similar to
Australian-born population (Evans, 1985).

In the educational area, evidence suggests that Asian
Australian students are performing well in educational
institutions (Bullivant, 1986 and Birrell, 1986). While
one frequently see numerous Asian Australian names in
top 100 HSC results, one needs to be cautious in
generalising this to all Asian Australian groups or to
exclude other possible variables.

For example, Chinese Australian and Vietnamese
Australian students seem more likely to achieve their
educational aspirations than Lao or Cambodian students.
Reasons for this include the disrupted education as a
result of years of war and a lack of support services
for parents and students. Educational success has also
generated competitive fears over access over limited
educational resources (Jayasuriya, 1990:11).

In the area of criminality, Francis in a study of prison
statistics between 1947-66 showed that Asian and
African-born migrants had much lower criminal rates than
migrants from the U.K., Canada and New Zealand (Francis,
1981). Figures from the 1986 national prison statistics
show that the Asian-born had a low rate of conviction
and incarceration at approximately 1.6 per 100 prisoners
(Jayasuriya, 1990:11). In recounting criminal activity
by Asian Australians, the emphasis given by the mass
media is to locate it within the culture and ethnicity
of the individual and not discuss such factors as the
local environment, the current economic recession,
occupational blockages and structural prejudices.

Criminal elements exist among Asians in Australia as
they exist in other communities. The difference is that
Asian offenders are almost always described by local
police and the media in the most colourful and racial
terms and usually in monolithic terms, for example,
headlines like "Terror as Asian Gangs Rule the Streets",
"Bandits Hit Rich Asians", "Crime and Culture in
Cabramatta". When these newspapers report on crimes
committed by Anglo-Australians, the ethnicity of the
offenders are rarely mentioned in the headlines.

On the issue of racist violence against Asian
Australians, the National Inquiry into Racist Violence
in Australia noted that the intensity of prejudice was
influenced by the types of contemporary political
debate, the national economic situation and the current
media focus (HEROC, 1991:140). Second or third
generation Australians of Asian descent were equally
likely to face racism. There was a reluctance of
publicising of anti-Asian sentiment as it leads to
greater levels of resentment.

The 1992 Access and Equity Evaluation Report noted that
the impact of the Access and Equity Strategy was
variable and on both clients and departments. The
Strategy had bought about a 'consciousness among
managers and a climate conducive for them to occur'
(OMA,1992:119). There had been improvements in language,
information services and cross-cultural interaction
but barriers still remained. This included the
unavailability of interpreters, the inappropriate use of
interpreters, the inappropriate use of the media for
information dissemination (OMA, 1993:10).

For Asian Australians with a limited command of English,
the most readily available languages are those with a
large number of speakers and users such as Chinese and
Vietnamese. For smaller communities like Korean, Urdu,
Cambodian, Lao or Thai, it is difficult to access
interpreting services, especially in an emergency,
because there are no full-time interpreters in these
languages. This applies to both Federal and State
language services. For minorities like the Hmong or the
Ngung people, the situation is drastic.

Although government agencies are supposed to arrange
interpreters and pay for them, this is not always
possible and many clients still rely on children,
relatives and friends.

Another
problem relates to finding a mechanism to distribute
translated materials so that it reaches its targeted
audience. This is especially the case with many elderly
Asian Australians who may not be literate in their own
languages. As such, written translated materials need to
be supplemented with verbal information.

Another concern in language services is the lack of
coordination between service providers such as the
Telephone Interpreter Service, the State Ethnic Affairs
Commissions or Bureau of Ethnic Affairs and the Health
Translation Service. Each of these agencies operate in
their own defined areas of jurisdiction. This leaves
many clients having to sort out which service to call
upon and they are often shuffled from one agency to
another in search of the right interpreters. Amid this
confusion, many Asian Australians who are not fluent in
English give up their quest for services.

Many of the new arrivals have established self-help
organisations for mutual support and as a means of
channelling their contributions to the host community.
The 1992 Directory of Ethnic Community Organisations in
Australia listed no less than 102 Asian community
organisations in New South Wales alone, compared to 84
in 1989. Many other groups are not listed but are known
to exist. Some of the organisations receive government
funding while the majority depend on the goodwill of
volunteers.

On a nation-wide basis, 18 Asian community organisations
were beneficiaries of settlement grants from the
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1992-93,
ranging in monetary value from $16,000 to $46,000 out of
a total grant budget of $3.4 million (DILGEA, Media
Release, 14/1/93). Annual welfare grants from the NSW
Ethnic Affairs Commission to Asian organisations
totalled 7 in 1989 (worth $57,000) and 6 in 1993 with a
monetary value of $66,000 or 6.6% of the total
allocation of $1 million (NSW Minister of Ethnic
Affairs, Media Release, 27/1/93). Four Asian Australian
groups received 2-3 year Federal grants in 1991 compared
to 2 in 1993. While on the surface, this represents an
increase in funding, it is worth remembering that
between 1986 and 1992 the number of Asian-born residents
in Australia has increased by 40% from 413,187 to
687,850 (Census Applications, Small Area System
Comparison 1986-1991, Table 7). More than 40% of the new
arrivals are estimated to have settled in New South
Wales, the magnet for new migrants.

In the educational area, 66 of the 166 community managed
ethnic schools in New South Wales provide Asian language
classes. Chinese ethnic schools account for 50 per cent
of this number with an enrolment of more than 9,800
students. These ethnic schools have been able to carry
on mainly through dedication of its members, supported
by small Federal and State government grants.

Much of the current government grants have community
development on a high priority while individual
assistance (casework) and family support have lower
priority, in particular those involving youth problems
and family conflicts. In the area of emergency or crisis
accommodation, Asian Australian organisations have also
assisted in establishing ethno-specific services. An
example would be the establishment of an Indochinese
women's refuge and a young Asian women's refuge in 1992
in Sydney. The Vietnamese Women's Association in
Liverpool, Sydney, deals with at least 3 referrals a
week involving women in situations of domestic violence.
The 1991-92 figures from the NSW Department of Housing
shows that 29% of applicants for crisis accommodation
are of non-English speaking background. 75% of NESB
applicants culled out at the first stage of the
selection process compared to 61% of English-speaking
background applicants.

Asian communities have also obtained grants to set up
childcare centres and aged people's homes and matching
grants to build temples and community centres. A number
of Asian and mainstream welfare agencies have
implemented projects targeting Asian clients in relation
to women's health, AIDS education, drug and alcohol
education, and employment-related activities. In the
area of accommodation, for example, the NSW Department
of Housing under the Local Government and Community
Housing Program provided the following matching grants
in 1990-92: $360,000 for an Indochinese women's refuge;
$593,000 and land worth $400,000 to build home units for
Vietnamese residents; and $667,000 for 8 semi-detached
cottages for Lao aged in Sydney (NSW Department of
Housing, 1992, Appendix 1).

Perspectives on
Immigration and Refugee Intakes
Australia, as a signatory to the UN Convention on
Refugees (1968), accepts people to come and live on its
soil if they satisfy the UN Convention's definition of a
refugee, namely: someone who is outside his or her
country of origin and is unable or unwilling to return
to it, owing to well-founded fear of persecution because
of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion.

Those who do not meet the UN Convention definition but
who nevertheless had suffered "gross violations of their
human rights may be accepted under the Special
Humanitarian component. A third component, called
Special Assistance, is aimed at people overseas who have
experienced "hardship and suffering" such as being in
serious danger in war-like situations and who have close
links with Australia.

The number of intakes under this Refugee, Humanitarian
and Special Assistance Program is based on quota set
each year by DILGEA. Quota for the program in 1991-92
was 10,000 (actual intake 7,157), 12,000 for 1992-93,
and 13,000 for 1993-94 to accommodate the number of
displaced persons in former Yugoslavia and Eastern
Europe (Media Release, Minister for Immigration and
Ethnic Affairs, 26 May 1993).

Of particular relevance to Asian Australians under this
program are the Indochinese refugees from Vietnam and
Laos and the smaller numbers of "eligible people" from
recognised countries in the region such as Sri Lanka,
China, Indonesia, and Myanmar. The number of Asian
arrivals under the Refugee, Humanitarian and Special
Assistance Program totalled 6,807 for 1989-90 and 3,136
for 1991-92 (BIR, ? :31-32).

Before 1989, most refugees were off-shore applicants,
with an average of only 300 on-shore applications a
year. After the Australian Government granted 4 year
temporary residence in Australia to Chinese nationals
after the Tiananmen Square incident in June 1989, close
to 10,000 applicants were received for 1991-92. This
includes more than 300 from "boat people" from Cambodia
and China. Since the system could process only 295
applications to the primary stage ( ? & in what time
frame? ), 23,066 people were still left waiting for
decisions on their refugee applications at the end of
1991.

Most applicants have to wait 2 or more years before
their applications are processed. Despite an injection
of additional funds from $8.7 million in 1991/92 to
$25.1 million in 1992/93 and the streamlining of the
refugee determination process to reduce the waiting
period to 2 months at the primary stage, many thousands
of people are still awaiting government decisions on
their status. This is in addition to those who have been
granted temporary residence.

The Commonwealth Government has also introduced
legislation which cancels "denial of natural justice" as
grounds for appeals against official decisions. It also
enacted laws to restrict payment of compensation for
detention of boat people or border claimants.

What is most anomalous about the Australian Refugees,
Humanitarian and Special Assistance Program is that
on-shore refugees with temporary residence status are
eligible to work, to use Medicare and to sponsor
immediate family members. (however, if the relationship
between a couple breaks down, the sponsored partner is
subject to deportation). They can obtain financial
assistance from charity organisations with special funds
given by the government, but are not eligible to apply
for government housing or Social Security benefits.

In comparison, those in detention centres like the
Cambodian "boat people" have to languish in Villawood,
Melbourne or Port Hedland because of complex legal
process and slow bureaucratic procedures. If the system
is convoluted and takes years to complete the
determination process, then border-claimants should not
be put in detention centres but released to be in the
community like the rest of the on-shore claimants.

Perspectives on the
Future
Although much remains to be done under Australia's
multicultural policy, many Asians have made much inroads
into Australian business, political and professional
life. In the educational area, Asian Australian students
are performing well, often gaining a reputation for
being high achievers or over-achievers (Bullivant,
1986). While Asian Australian names are found each year
in the top 10 of the Higher School Certificate results,
caution is needed when looking at Asian students in
general. There is, for example, a high rate of school
drop-out among the Vietnamese, Lao and Cambodian refugee
students, largely due to lack of support and the refugee
background of the parents.
There are now politicians of Asian background in local
governments and in Federal and State Parliaments. The
number of Asian personalities in the entertainment
industry, the arts and the media is also increasing.
Despite the exaggerated depiction of Asian criminal
activities by the print media, local and national
English language newspapers now also carry stories of
success on Asian shop-keepers or entrepreneurs (Thomas,
1993: 31-37). Buddhist pagodas, Hindu temples and Asian
churches have been set up in many Australian capital
cities, often against much opposition from local
residents.

Refugees from Vietnam have "experienced a significant
degree of upward mobility between first job and current
job in Australia" with the ethnic Chinese more
concentrated in manual work and small business than the
Vietnamese (Tran and Holton, 1991: 174). It is expected
that this trend will continue for many Asian Australians
if opportunities are shared and participation can be
made under principles of social justice and equality. In
a sense we have on our doorsteps a very successful model
of cultural diversity, given the massive changes in our
population profiles in such a short time. Beyond making
economic and cultural contributions, improvement in
access and equity will further enable Asian Australians
to gain a real sense of Australian identity and to help
nurture Australia's cultural diversity for the mutual
benefits of all residents and future generations. As the
contributions of Asian Australians increase and evolve
over time, the reality of what it is to be an Australian
will change, at a point in Australian history when we
are all negotiating multiple realities for the future
and visions that are inclusive of minority and majority
aspirations.